New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[regent]

must have misread the report in the paper, usual evening news exageration i suppose.

[regent]

[wangi]

A history of Portobello High School site options:

[seanie]

That's the abridged version

[Porty]

[mr magnolia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... d-19660391

[tufty]

Having been on holiday to Amsterdam my husband has come up with a plan. No land, reclaim some, build out at sea. But then I think he may have been enjoying some of the available refreshments in Amsterdam, he's not thinking straight. There is a slight issue of cost.

Of course we would all want CEC to buy a plot of land and build the school, but reality bites. There is no money and a problem with available plots.

I'm concerned by the level of hostility and daft ideas being posted here.

Please for the sake of the children practical ideas only please. We should all agree we need a new school sooner than 5-6 years.

[commander114]

removed

[seanie]

You're trying to convince the wrong people. You should be telling the Council about your solution to all our problems. You should do a PowerPoint.

[Snow White]

Sorry Commander. I couldn't buy into your idea for several reasons including:-
* the situation of your planned building. Just too close for comfort to 125s speeding past (I'm sure ppag would also view this as too dangerous given their voiced concern about road safety for children).
* the number of floors necessary to accommodate a school for 1200 children. The current 8 storey building struggles to cope at class changeover time. Any parent of a PHS child will tell you that is one of the most prevalent moans from children and a continual safety concern of parents. Furthermore, I wouldnt be championing another skyscraper in Portobello, simply from an aesthetic point of view (I'm sure pongs would agree given their objection to the height of a planned waste disposal site nearby).
So, it's back to the park for me!

[Porty]

There are many reasons why the Commanders idea is un- deliverable in any real sense. We've seen the "given proper funding" assumption a few times in the past. I picked on height due to a recent planning decision.

Viridor were recently refused planning permission on the site for their proposed shed, which was deemed unacceptable due to being visible from the Portobello/Brighton conservation area. Tangible and justified.

A new school for 1400 built on a 10M platform would have to come in under the height of the shed,

Can we now move onto the other "many alternative options" you say there are Commander? There is genuine will for you to come up with a suitable, acceptable, deliverable, feasible option. The floor is yours.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think we could be going underground next. It's been done before, somwhere. Given proper funding and adequate ventilation, I think it's perfectly possible. Oh no, hang on - that was the Wombles.

Sorry Commander, do continue.

[wangi]

Sense of deja-vu some what - many thousands of posts ago I'm sure I proposed something similar the commander's plan. (I now think I was bonkers!)

Tying a few of the points above together - the visibility and intrusion of such a structure from the Portobello conservation area would be a concern. This was the core reason for the Viridor proposal being given the boot. Likewise one of PPAG's favourite points was the loss of view to the Firth of Forth - this would intrude too.

The railway there is a working site, not just passing trains - see the recent concerns locally with East Coast maintenance activities during the night (noise, fumes), Portobello wheel lathe, Craigentinny maintenance depot, ... Could these working sites be maintained with a building above?

But cost - ballpark?

[seanie]

The costs would be eye watering.

[Porty]

[fresian]

Commander, you mentioned the Etihad Towers. Having worked on construction projects in the UAE and Oman, I am well aware of the issues when it comes to buiding on less than satifactory ground conditions. ( See link below). The foundations for this alone would exceed the original budget for the school, as well as causing major disruption to the railways. Another thing to remember is that buildings like the Etihad Towers are funded by private enterprise, with the intention of recouping vast amounts of money through either rental or sale of space. Public buildings are a completely different thing.

http://www.zetas.com.tr/projeler_eng.aspx?p=11

[Epykat]

The more I think about it, the more I reckon the tower block should actually be listed as an example of innovative 60s design and refurbished.

When the school was first built it was the perfect solution to the problem of a small site (btw who IS this God of hectares who keeps telling us how much space we HAVE to have to survive our education unscathed in an urban area?) and designed with four lifts for all pupils to use to access various floors. Colour coded, different lifts stopped at different floors and pupils used the appropriate lift to the class they were heading for. Each lift was manned by a member of staff at each changeover time. This meant that stairs were clear of crowds and changeovers were done with minimal disruption and at speed. A one way system was also in place in corridors which caused minimal congestion. With all four lifts replaced and in working order this system would be reinstated. When this system actually was in place there was at that time a roll of approximately 2000.

The Tower has a lot going for it. Large, airy classrooms. Lots of storage space. Amazing views and light from all sides and imaginative use of space in the siting of a large greenhouse on the roof. It is also surprisingly quiet on the 7th and 8th floors because the number of pupils and staff up there at any given time is restricted to the handful of classrooms - it's a great place to study. Thankfully it may sway slightly in the wind, otherwise it would fall down.

The gym and swimming pool are relatively new and in good condition, these could be kept, thereby saving money.

The House rooms which are in very poor condition could be demolished and a new 2-3 storey block could be built in their place which could house a dining room and kitchens and also more classrooms which would mean the Maths Dept could again be part of the main school and not in Portakabins.

The derelict tennis courts and basketball court could be developed to expand the existing new astroturf pitch and shared with St. John's. A nice area for any other outdoor sports required, ie running, hurdling, javelin throwing etc could be done on the newly refurbed top of the golfie (the Council ARE going to sort that out surely since it wasn't in as bad a state before they started as it is now?).

Throw in a really nicely landscaped quadrangle with covered seating areas, trees, water feature etc and it could be a little oasis.

[Porty]

The lack of suitable alternative is finally beginning to sink in.

[Sceptic]

Sorry Epykat, where will the 1500 pupils and staff be whilst this is happening?
You will have to get builders to buy into this, refurbishing a sixties building has complications, you don't know what you will find when you start demolishing, rot of all kinds, as bestos? Asbestos may well be in the building, it is fine when undisturbed, when you begin to disturb it, the men in white suits and breathing apparatus step in and the costs increase by many times.
Refurbishing is NOT, repat, NOT, an option.

[Epykat]

[gillian]

Me? Don't have a scooby. You see I truly believed that the law would be less of an ass than it has proved to be. And before that I truly hoped that PPAG would see the error of their nimby ( and I use the word carefully as I think it maybe overused sometimes) ways. So I am clueless. Which is why I won't be going to the meeting either, to give the people who do have suggestions a chance to get though the door.

[Epykat]

[gillian]

Sad, sad day for our community though, when our young people end up with plan b or maybe even plan c. Still we get to keep that glorious park up the road which will be a great relief to all the hundreds who use it. And the few who live by it.

[commander114]

removed

[lg1726]

Well i sincerely hope that the council tax payer in the rest of Edinburgh are not too miffed at the use of their taxes for this building! After all, the likes of Boroughmuir will get what is left for there new school. I think I were a parent in any of the other wave three schools I might want to have more than a passing interest in the cost of such a structure and the ramification to overall new schools build budget for Edinburgh! Just a thought and a wee reminder that this does not just affect our kids!

[tufty]

Sorry, I know I shouldn't but having spent a very long time in drawing offices, I can't help myself. Drawings really really poor, a reflection perhaps of the idea, not the design as such, a wonderful thought given that brief, but in this case where finance is a factor, it's like asking Easy Jet to go to the moon, on a budget that wouldn't cover oxygen.

[Scoop]

[tufty]

I don't have to, there is already a brilliant plan, model and design, passed for build, and I'm sorry but there was no perspective, an omission I cannot miss after having it drummed in.
Idea and design totally different parts of the process.
Really I wish CEC had the money to build such a wonderful modern building, but I don't live in cloud cookoo land.
I've never bitched before, but a ruler and 2 different coloured biros does not make an architect, although it provides great entertainment.
I'll sleep soundly as I know I live and work for the greater good.

[portygeoff]

Interesting meeting, majority preference view from my limited hearing/viewing was Referendum in Portobello, if a majority go for a bill.

This was though after lots of discussions over the options which did seem to be getting a real airing. Strangely one view which came up from a number of apparently pro PPAG people was to build on the existing site and decamp during this to Porty Park where temporary building would be built. Then make Porty Park the site for sports thus reducing the space needed on the new build on the original site. No decision on the swimming pool and gym being put there though.

I did raise the issue of what to do with St Johns but this didn't seem to have been considered in this plan.

[Epykat]

There might be a brilliant plan, model and design but they don't have anywhere to build it.

On the other hand, they have a school already which just needs tarting up. I'm now thinking wind turbines and solar panels on the roof and since they've just spent several grand on curtains for the assembly hall, they won't need to renew them for a fair few years either.

- makes quite interesting reading.

[portygeoff]

Oh, one other thing. One PPAG supporter argued that if there was to be a referendum it should be Edinburgh wide. Er isn't this the same group where a number of its members went unchallenged when arguing that only those born in Porty should have a say in the issue. Oh how times change.

[rmolehusband]

[Bob Jefferson]

Is Portobello Park Common Good land? Andy Wightman, an expert on the subject, has his doubts:

[Epykat]

[Bob Jefferson]

I have to say I like the way you are slowly disassociating yourself with them. You aren't a 'member' and now you aren't a 'supporter'. You just happen to share their views?